Gundam GP01 said:
otakon17 said:
Nope. It doesn't do me some great peace to think I'll be dead but a copy of me would still be around. It still wouldn't be ME, sure it would be "ME" but a copy of my experiences isn't the same as living through them, plus the fact that I wouldn't be continuing on, just the information I'd accrued over my lifetime would. Now, find a way to actually TRANSFER my thoughts and memories to a digital format and I'll be more than happy to hook up.
Since we're talking about digital clones, I dont really see how there could be any difference between transferring and copying, except that the original biological brain would be destroyed in the process for the former.
No difference? You're completely ignoring even the simplest concepts to try and say that. Let's make it simple shall we?
You have a file on a computer that you want to move, and only have two ways of doing it:
Cut-&-Paste (transfer): There is only that singular file, the original, being moved. Any alterations made will affect it, and should it be deleted (dies), that's it.
Copy-&-Paste (cloning): There are two files now, the original you still possess and the second one, the copy, on another computer. From this point on, any changes to one fill will no longer affect the other, and should the original be deleted, there is a copy of it but there's in all likelyhood at least SOME changes, which means it is no longer like the original.
Now replace the file with the concept of the self, your consciousness. In one instance you still exist, and in the other there is you and then there is "you". To try and argue there is no difference between digitally transferring and digitally copying your consciousness completely ignores free will. Not to mention it's extremely naive. Even with all of your memories and experiences, a second you will be different no matter what. Merely knowing that it is nothing but a clone will affect its choices.
Which makes this a terrible book. In completely ignoring a whole half of the equation (as the article brought up), the author has no actual respect towards this concept as a whole. It's as if Asimov chose to not write the three rules of Robotics simply because he was so enamored with how cool it would be to have robots around.